M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

Oh really?  So there were WMD's in Iraq just as Bush repeatedly claimed there were as his first justification for invading Iraq? [/quote]
We haven’t found them yet. We’re still looking. Patience grasshopper!

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

Or did we go there because Iraq had some connection to Al Qaeda (which it did not)? [/quote]
Not true, there was a connection between the two.

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

Do you realize that the U.S. had more of a relationship with Hussein, Bin Laden, and the Taliban than Hussein ever had with any Islamic fundamentalists? Or do you perhaps buy Bush's later claims that we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people [/quote]
Actually, we went to Iraq to establish a democratically elected state (thereby creating stability in extremely volatile region of the world), slowly eradicate terrorism throughout the Arab countries, and to free the Iraqi people from oppression (like Clinton did with Serbia – I don’t recall too much opposition from the left while we pummeled Belgrade from 20,000 feet.)

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

Do you agree with spending over $87 billion for the war and rebuilding of Iraq when that money is needed far more domestically to solve problems like homelessness, overcrowded schools, unemployment, and lack of medical insurance for millions. I think it's far more likely that I'll need affordable health insurance than it is that I'll die in a terrorist attack, but apparently W. thinks so much of the citizens of his own country, he'd rather pump billions into Iraq, and send thousands of soldiers over there to die for no good reason. [/quote]
Sure, that $87 billion would have been great utilized into areas supporting our citizens, but unfortunately we are face with a determined enemy that is intent on destroying us. Like September 11th proved, it only takes a few individuals to create havoc on a massive scale. With the development of virulent strains of biological weapons, a few terrorists nowadays could potentially wipe out thousands if not millions of Americans before we could effectively contain it. Between that and nuclear weapons, the threat is very real and Americans (like Herr Moore) better come to terms with this before there is no US left to make documentaries in. That’s hardly any way I want to live or my children to live. Sometime, there comes a point when you have to put your foot down, pick a side, and trust in God that what you are doing is just and for the right reasons.

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

How exactly are the U.S. and the world safer than we were a year ago? Do you feel safer knowing Bush attacked and destabilized a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the U.S.? Would you still support Bush and his war if you had to go fight and potentially lose your life? [/quote]
And how do you know Iraq posed no threat to the US? Perhaps not today or even next year, but directly or indirectly, it was logical to assume, based on current intelligence assessments, that Iraq was a very credible threat to US interests. Just because we have not found any significant WMDs doesn’t mean they still do not exist. It just means that we haven’t found them yet. If there was one thing that Bush miscalculated on it was putting most of his eggs in the WMD basket. It was gamble that his detractors are now using against him. He should have called the US/Ally incursion into the Middle East for what it really was/is – the elimination/reduction at its source of Arab fundamentalist Islamic extremism. That source being Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

Do you feel safer now that Bush has alienated the world?[/quote]
Has Bush alienated the US from the rest of the world or has the world alienated the US? The reason I ask that question, is because it seems to be a common theme with the anti-Bush group in that we somehow have lost favor with many countries, specifically those in Europe. Why should we even care what they think? I know that sounds arrogant, but what has the rest of the world done for the United States? Just because we are now the lone superpower doesn’t mean we have to prostrate ourselves in humility like a puppy that just **** on the carpet because we don’t want to offend our neighbors. Americans by nature are cocky and sure of ourselves and for that reason we are perceived as arrogant and hated. Unlike the pure breeds in Europe, we are nation of pound dogs that quite honestly doesn’t give a **** what others think. Our hodgepodge collection of misfits have come together under many trials and tribulations with a common dream – that any of us one of us, if we’re willing to pursue our goal, can be successful. Also, don’t lose sight of the fact that many in Europe, like France and Germany, had financial motives for not wanting to attack Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It would have been a major conflict of interest to do so. Additionally, I feel it was France and Germany that turned their backs on the United States. During WWII, it was the US, Great Britain and Canada (along with other allies) that liberated France from German occupation. After the war, it the United States that assisted financially in the rebuilding of both countries. For over 50 years since then, it was we (the US and UK) that stood side by side with our European allies, willing to shed our blood in defense of their countries against possible Soviet aggression. Anytime there was a natural disaster, humanitarian relief effort, or some other instance that prompted world assistance, who was it that repeatedly shouldered most of the load? The United States!

So don’t give us that crap about being alienated. In our fight against terror, it was those sons-of-bitches that turned their back on us when needed them. Shame on them!!!

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

I'm confounded by people who support this liar, especially people who aren't heads of megacorporations that benefit financially from having Bush and his neocon cronies in the White House. Why would someone so staunchly defend Bush in the face of his incompetence, his deceptiveness, his eroding of the very freedoms he claims to be fighting to protect?[/quote]
Liar? What has he lied about?
Megacorporations? What corporations do refer to?
Incompetence and deceptiveness? Pure speculation and subjective on your part.
Eroding freedoms? Like what? If anything, it’s Bush’s detractors that want to slowly erode your freedoms (i.e. gun control, religion references, redistribution of wealth, unfair taxation, even the pledge of allegiance.)

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

What exactly do you like about this guy? [/quote]
What exactly do you not like about him? Everything you mentioned above thus far has been unsubstantiated rhetoric.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

What are you talking about? What evidence? There are no WMD'S. How can you even question this? (And had there been WMD's, would that have justified invading a country that had never attacked us? Should we attack any country that has WMD's, consequences be damned?)[/quote]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

Regardless of whether you believe Moore's film is 100% factually accurate, any ostensible lies or untruths perpetuated by Moore have not resulted in American and foreign deaths. Bush's have.[/quote]
Not yet, but how long do you think it will take before Iraqi/Al Queda insurgents begin to equate the success and popularity of this movie as an indicator that Americans are increasingly growing impatient and disillusioned with the war? Moore and those that support his inflammatory propaganda embolden our enemies.

[quote author=Stas_Tagios link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#56 date=06/30/04 at 02:06:29]

And I'm sure since you're such an ardent Bush supporter, the instant you're done reading these posts, you'll dash off down to your local Armed Forces recruitment office and sign up for duty in Iraq.[/quote]
Too late, been there and done that. Time already served with duty over in Iraq. Also in 1989, I was in Germany when the Berlin Wall went down. Before that, during the Cold War, I conducted’supervised patrols along the “Landes Grenze” across from Czechoslovakia. I’m now currently in Korea, less that 30km from the Demilitarized Zone. In fact, I just got back from a visit to the DMZ with some of my ROK Army friends a few days ago – as always, a very interesting experience. Too bad Moore (and his supporters) never get the chance to visit these parts before recklessly bashing Americans and their ideals to his snobbish European pals.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Ranger link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#52 date=06/29/04 at 08:26:33]I'm not saying the man is an angel without fault, but on the flipside I don't recall any circumstances where the President intentionally lied.[/quote]

Here's a rather blatant one, from 2000:

"But by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

I use this statement because it is irrefutably, undeniably false, and a deliberate lie. It's not even true a little bit, not by any definition or standard. And it's just one example.

I could post others, but honestly what's the point? Facts are meaningless to these people.

If you buy into the lies that Bush lied about weapons of mass destrestruction, Bush lied about 911, Bush stole the presidency, then you are either being deceived or you don't believe that truth matters.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you dismiss anything you don't agree with as a "lie." Well sorry, but you not agreeing with it doesn't make it not true. On the other hand, you'll believe ANYTHING negative about Moore and declare unequivocally that Moore is a liar.

You cherry pick facts to support your already determined conclusions. Bush is a honest man, therefore anything that proves he's a liar must be a lie. Moore is a liar, and therefore anything that proves his critics are lying must also be a lie.

It's a little like arguing with a Creationist, which is to say like banging your head against a wall. I think it's quite obvious that truth and facts don't matter to you. The idea that you're interested in "all sides" is itself a deception, even if you're only lying to yourself.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Ranger link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#60 date=06/30/04 at 12:10:49]
Not true, there was a connection between the two.[/quote]

Supposed meetings that never amounted to anything are hardly a justification for war. The meetings between Rumsfeld and Hussein were more substantial.

(like Clinton did with Serbia – I don’t recall too much opposition from the left while we pummeled Belgrade from 20,000 feet.)
Click to expand...

Actually Moore was VERY critical of Clinton during the NATO bombing of Kosovo. And if not the left, certainly the right, including the Republican leadership were extremely critical. Tom Delay even blamed CLINTON for the genocide atrocities committed by Milosevic.

Why do Republicans hate America?

Sure, that $87 billion would have been great utilized into areas supporting our citizens, but unfortunately we are face with a determined enemy that is intent on destroying us. Like September 11th proved, it only takes a few individuals to create havoc on a massive scale. With the development of virulent strains of biological weapons, a few terrorists nowadays could potentially wipe out thousands if not millions of Americans before we could effectively contain it.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with Iraq?

And how do you know Iraq posed no threat to the US? Perhaps not today or even next year, but directly or indirectly, it was logical to assume, based on current intelligence assessments, that Iraq was a very credible threat to US interests.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. No other word really to describe this little mound of crapola. This idea that Iraq was some vague future threat is based on NOTHING. No real evidence. Nothing but wishful thinking and rumors. And it hardly justifies INVASION. Not only that but an unclear, undefinable threat is certainly not enough, one would imagine, for Bush to violate his anti-nation-building principles during 2000.

And if the Bush doctrine is really such a success and completely justified, then why haven't we invaded countries that pose far greater threats to the US, like N. Korea or Iran?

Sure, our military is spread thin, but after that? Do you think we're going to be rushing into N. Korea the way we rushed into Iraq? The answer is: not any time soon. In fact, I'd wager we won't be pre-emptively invading another country for the foreseeable future.

And if there is validity to the Bush doctrine, then wouldn't OTHER countries be justified in using it against us? I'm sure Iran and North Korea could argue that the US is at least a vague and unclear threat to them, indeed they have, as they are to us.

What exactly do you not like about him? Everything you mentioned above thus far has been unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Kind of like your entire post. It's remarkable to me how high your threshold of proof is for Bush's lies, and how incredibly low, virtually non-existent, it is for something as important as going to war.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#62 date=06/30/04 at 12:26:42]

Here's a rather blatant one, from 2000:

"But by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

I use this statement because it is irrefutably, undeniably false, and a deliberate lie.  It's not even true a little bit, not by any definition or standard.  And it's just one example.
[/quote]
Are you so sure tax cuts didn't go to the bottom end of the spectrum? I don't know about that statement. Percentile wise, I think they got an equal if not greater share of the tax cuts. Personally, I think the rich pay far too much of the tax burden. I don't believe in economic redistribution to the masses. It should be a flat tax rate across the board. If I earned it, then I should not be penalized for being successful.

That second quote you sited is not mine.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#63 date=06/30/04 at 12:43:36]

Bullshit.  No other word really to describe this little mound of crapola.  This idea that Iraq was some vague future threat is based on NOTHING.  No real evidence.  Nothing but wishful thinking and rumors.  And it hardly justifies INVASION.  Not only that but an unclear, undefinable threat is certainly not enough, one would imagine, for Bush to violate his anti-nation-building principles during 2000. [/quote]

Bullshit? ROFL ... okay if you say so. ;D
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Ranger link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#64 date=06/30/04 at 12:44:25]
Personally, I think the rich pay far too much of the tax burden.[/quote]

According to the IRS the top 1% of the richest Americans pay close to 1/3 of the taxes. I am no where near that range, but I agree that they pay way too much.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#63 date=06/30/04 at 12:43:36]
Bullshit.  No other word really to describe this little mound of crapola.  This idea that Iraq was some vague future threat is based on NOTHING.  No real evidence.  Nothing but wishful thinking and rumors.  And it hardly justifies INVASION.  Not only that but an unclear, undefinable threat is certainly not enough, one would imagine, for Bush to violate his anti-nation-building principles during 2000.  
[/quote]

Saddam tried to assassinate a President. You don't consider that a threat?

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Ranger link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#64 date=06/30/04 at 12:44:25]Are you so sure tax cuts didn't go to the bottom end of the spectrum?[/quote]

Yes, quite sure. The top 20% wealthiest tax payers received 79.7% of the cuts. The bottom 60% received just 7.8%.

Percentile wise, I think they got an equal if not greater share of the tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even close. And even the idea that you think they did proves my point pretty dramatically.

Personally, I think the rich pay far too much of the tax burden.
Click to expand...

Considering you don't even know what percentage of the tax burden they pay, that's an opinion based on nothing.

But based on a percentage of income, and factoring in state and local taxes, the tax burden on the richest 1% compared to the tax burden on the poor is remarkably close. About 21% for the rich, and 19% for the poor. (of course, that's prior to Bush's tax cuts for the rich)

I don't believe in economic redistribution to the masses. It should be a flat tax rate across the board. If I earned it, then I should not be penalized for being successful.
Click to expand...

That's a discussion for another time, but it's irrelevant to Bush's lie about who benefits from his tax cut.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Okay, this discussion has now veered to the point where it has nothing to do with Fahrenheit 9/11 as a movie, so I'll exit the discussion, but before I do, I'd like to offer the following: since we've had such terms as "the Moore legion" or "the Bush followers", and since this board is typically populated by quite creative individuals, I think those terms don't hold up so well.  I think we can do better.  So, I offer for your consideration:

For those who believe absolutely everything that Bush and his team say, and refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary, they can be called the "Bushwhacked".

And for those who believe everything Moore says, and buy his line hook, line and sinker, they can be called the "Moore-ons".

;D
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#69 date=06/30/04 at 13:18:04]Okay, this discussion has now veered to the point where it has nothing to do with Fahrenheit 9/11 as a movie, so I'll exit the discussion, but before I do, I'd like to offer the following: since we've had such terms as "the Moore legion" or "the Bush followers", and since this board is typically populated by quite creative individuals, I think those terms don't hold up so well.  I think we can do better.  So, I offer for your consideration:

For those who believe absolutely everything that Bush and his team say, and refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary, they can be called the "Bushwhacked".

And for those who believe everything Moore says, and buy his line hook, line and sinker, they can be called the "Moore-ons".

;D[/quote]

HAHA!! Well said, Barry.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#68 date=06/30/04 at 13:03:13]

Yes, quite sure.  The top 20% wealthiest tax payers received 79.7% of the cuts.  The bottom 60% received just 7.8%.
[/quote]
Sounds like statistical spin to me dude. Those numbers quoted are meaningless without a comparison of the tax burden the upper 20% is expected to pay. They may receive 79.7% of the tax breaks, but at what percentage of their pay actually goes into taxes? 40%? 50% 60%? And then on the flipside ... what percentage of the tax burden is the lower 60% expected to pay? 10 - 30%?

So sure, the lower 60% may receive only 7.8% of the tax breaks, but they are still paying less percentage of their wages to the taxman than the rich guy.

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#68 date=06/30/04 at 13:03:13]

Nope, not even close. And even the idea that you think they did proves my point pretty dramatically.
[/quote]
What ... that you can manipulate numbers to support your argument? I only received a B+ in statistics years ago, but I learned enough during my staff officer time to realize that any number can be spun to justify a position (as explained above).

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#68 date=06/30/04 at 13:03:13]

Considering you don't even know what percentage of the tax burden they pay, that's an opinion based on nothing.
[/quote]
Honestly, I don't have a clue. I'm a soldier not H&R Block.


[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#68 date=06/30/04 at 13:03:13]

That's a discussion for another time, but it's irrelevant to Bush's lie about who benefits from his tax cut.
[/quote]
Ummm, you brought up the example.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#69 date=06/30/04 at 13:18:04]Okay, this discussion has now veered to the point where it has nothing to do with Fahrenheit 9/11 as a movie, so I'll exit the discussion, but before I do, I'd like to offer the following: since we've had such terms as "the Moore legion" or "the Bush followers", and since this board is typically populated by quite creative individuals, I think those terms don't hold up so well.  I think we can do better.  So, I offer for your consideration:

For those who believe absolutely everything that Bush and his team say, and refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary, they can be called the "Bushwhacked".

And for those who believe everything Moore says, and buy his line hook, line and sinker, they can be called the "Moore-ons".

;D[/quote]
Exactly and they can both be called idealogues.

I remember before the war I used to get in heated debates because I really didn't want it to happen. Now that all the damage is done, I'm just looking forward to voting in November. I suggest everyone do the same because arguing and debating about it is just futile at this point.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

To clear up some mistakes I made...

Ok, so the Clear Skies initiative and mercury didn't go hand in hand. I apologize, and offer further evidence of that plan's incompetence and potential harm to the enviornment: http://www.pbs.org/now/science/clearskies.html

As for Bush hiding when problems arise, I wasn't necessarily referring to going to Crawford for a month-long, but his repeatedly going back to his "base" and to those who cannot argue, members of the military. He wasn't frank with the American people when we needed him to be, instead Colon Powell (appearing on Meet the Press ten times this year alone) or Cheney (who went from "credible information to a threat" to "I never said that there was a credible threat") did the dirty work. Bush's one press conference this year wasn't terribly successful either, despite him being somewhat reserved and cornered, as he should've been.

And if I sounded soundbytey, I apologize. I don't defend Moore's sound-byteyness, so I shouldn't engage in it myself. But, please, as if the right hasn't been doing this for the past ten years? "Wag the dog" "blue dress", etc. Give me a break. Proof or no proof, the assault on language that this form of opinionistic nihilism is has made us more cynical.

Not defending Moore's politics (if the right has a single talented filmmaker anywhere in the world right now, I'd love to see something they'd make), "F 9/11" is an exceptionally edited piece, well constructed and occassionally sloppy, as to be expected. The scenes juxtaposing Rumsfeld and the war itself were an audacious sight. If we could simply get beyond politics (which is hard, given this extremely divided country) and discuss the formal choices, editing patterns, and use of imagery in this film, we'd be doing a quantum leap for film criticism in this country. Any takers?
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Michael_Lieberman link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#73 date=06/30/04 at 17:40:48] Proof or no proof, the assault on language that this form of opinionistic nihilism is has made us more cynical. [/quote]

Much agreed.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Ranger link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#71 date=06/30/04 at 13:57:26]Sounds like statistical spin to me dude. Those numbers quoted are meaningless without a comparison of the tax burden the upper 20% is expected to pay. They may receive 79.7% of the tax breaks, but at what percentage of their pay actually goes into taxes?[/quote]

It doesn't matter. What Bush said was, "By far the VAST MAJORITY of my tax cuts got to the BOTTOM END OF THE SPECTRUM."

And there's simply no way that's true, no matter how you look at the numbers. It doesn't matter what the burden was before. Bush doesn't say anything about that. He's talking about the benefits of his tax cut, and the FACT is that bottom 60% only got 7.8% of the benefit.

So the "spin" here is coming from YOU and it's a desperate non-sensical spin at that.

Conservatives certainly HAVE gone on to justify these tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy by saying that the rich pay a heavier burden of taxes (kind of like you're doing only they actually understand what they're talking about). But that ACKNOWLEDGES that the rich did in fact get a greater benefit from the tax cut, and underscores what a blatant LIE this statement by Bush was.

Ummm, you brought up the example.
Click to expand...

The point is that BUsh blatantly and deliberaly lied about who benefited from his tax cut. Whether or not you believe in the flat tax is irrelevant.

But your response overall is pretty indicative of what I'm talking about. As far as lies go, this one is cut and dry. It's not that big a deal really (he repeated it mostly on the campaign trail in 2000), but a lie it is. But by the time it gets filtered through this crap-machine of yours, awash in meaningless buzz words like "spin," it comes out somehow meaning that up is down and down is up, whatever it takes to convince yourself that a lie is not a lie. It's absurd. And it's no wonder then that something as complicated as F 9/11 gets completely raked over the coals and Moore gets fried. Because in your universe, the truth is whatever you agree with. And a lie is whatever contradicts that. In that world, Bush somehow becomes "honest" while Moore is reviled as a liar and propagandist.

The reality is somewhere else. Bush is no more honest as any other politician, which is to say not honest at all. He lies. He's lied several times. You may like him, you may agree with his politics, a lot of people do. That might make him "right" in your view, but it doesn't make him honest. And Moore is like any other op-ed columnist (except he makes films). He cherry picks the facts that back up his opinion and leaves out the rest. Maybe that makes him dishonest (I think you believe he's dishonest not for that reason but because you disagree with him), but that's what they all do.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#63 date=06/30/04 at 12:43:36]

I could post others, but honestly what's the point? Facts are meaningless to these people.
[/quote]
“Pot meet kettle.”

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#63 date=06/30/04 at 12:43:36]

Why do Republicans hate America?
[/quote]
That comment is a first. Usually, Republicans are criticized for loving America too much.

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#63 date=06/30/04 at 12:43:36]

But by the time it gets filtered through this crap-machine of yours, awash in meaningless buzz words like "spin," it comes out somehow meaning that up is down and down is up, whatever it takes to convince yourself that a lie is not a lie. It's absurd.
[/quote]
Crap-machine, meaningless buzz, up is down and down is up …

LOL … again “Pot meet kettle”

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=60#63 date=06/30/04 at 06:22:36]

And there's simply no way that's true, no matter how you look at the numbers. It doesn't matter what the burden was before. Bush doesn't say anything about that. He's talking about the benefits of his tax cut, and the FACT is that bottom 60% only got 7.8% of the benefit.

So the "spin" here is coming from YOU and it's a desperate non-sensical spin at that.

Conservatives certainly HAVE gone on to justify these tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy by saying that the rich pay a heavier burden of taxes (kind of like you're doing only they actually understand what they're talking about). But that ACKNOWLEDGES that the rich did in fact get a greater benefit from the tax cut, and underscores what a blatant LIE this statement by Bush was.
[/quote]
Well, it made perfect sense to me, but I also knew as I was writing my response that you would attempt to trash my reply. For some reason, you seemed to have become fixated on that lower 60% getting only 7.8% of the benefits without analyzing or grasping what that really means for the average lower 60% of Americans on the street. The higher tax brackets are shouldering most of the tax load. Of course it’s going to look on paper like they are receiving a higher cut, but in reality they are still not recouping the same amount of benefits commensurate with what they earned compared to the lower tax brackets. Why is it so difficult for you and others like you to understand that? Why is it that the left seems so intent on redistributing the wealth earned by others? It’s not your money and I'm damn sure wouldn’t want the government or some bleeding heart politician wasting my hard earned income for “feel good” projects and other worthless drivel. If you want to redistribute your income to the masses, go right ahead; just don’t tell others or me how to spend ours!
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Why is it that the left seems so intent on redistributing the wealth earned by others? It’s not your money and I'm damn sure wouldn’t want the government or some bleeding heart politician wasting my hard earned income for “feel good” projects and other worthless drivel.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would much rather pay higher taxes and live in a place where that money is used for things like social programs and arts funding. Americans pay much lower taxes than many parts of the world. I went to Europe a few months ago and it's amazing how much more support there is for things such as (gasp!) art museums and cultural funding. Gaudi's Park Guell, for example http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/barcelona/gaudipark/gaudipark.html would have been bulldozed for a Walmart by now had it been built in Indiana. But hey, that's cool. That's up to the voters to decide. If you'd rather pay lower taxes and have fewer "feel good" projects and worthless drivel (your words), that's your prerogative to vote that way. This is all way off topic of the Moore film, but since you asked, that's just one example of why I would vote the other way. But hey, that's just me. I don't worship $$. And I'm sure it would cost a bit less than $87 billion to fund a few of these worthless drivel projects.

I only spent a week in Barcelona, so I'm hardly an expert on the city. Maybe most of the residents feel like you, and would rather stockpile cash than have a city full of so much worthless drivel. But I'm betting not. And yes, I do know that much of Gaudi's work was funded privately, but not all of it was. And even the works that were funded privately have been maintained not just with tourist dollars, but with tax dollars. You must feel sorry for those poor people in Barcelona, having to live in a city full of feel good worthless drivel such as Gaudi's architecture and the Picasso and Miro museums.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Josh_Boelter link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=75#77 date=07/01/04 at 05:39:06]

Personally, I would much rather pay higher taxes and live in a place where that money is used for things like social programs and arts funding. Americans pay much lower taxes than many parts of the world. I went to Europe a few months ago and it's amazing how much more support there is for things such as (gasp!) art museums and cultural funding. Gaudi's Park Guell, for example http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/barcelona/gaudipark/gaudipark.html would have been bulldozed for a Walmart by now had it been built in Indiana. But hey, that's cool. That's up to the voters to decide. If you'd rather pay lower taxes and have fewer "feel good" projects and worthless drivel (your words), that's your prerogative to vote that way. This is all way off topic of the Moore film, but since you asked, that's just one example of why I would vote the other way. But hey, that's just me. I don't worship $$. And I'm sure it would cost a bit less than $87 billion to fund a few of these worthless drivel projects.

I only spent a week in Barcelona, so I'm hardly an expert on the city. Maybe most of the residents feel like you, and would rather stockpile cash than have a city full of so much worthless drivel. But I'm betting not. And yes, I do know that much of Gaudi's work was funded privately, but not all of it was. And even the works that were funded privately have been maintained not just with tourist dollars, but with tax dollars. You must feel sorry for those poor people in Barcelona, having to live in a city full of feel good worthless drivel such as Gaudi's architecture and the Picasso and Miro museums.

[/quote]
Who said that “worthless drivel” equates to the arts or architecture? Don’t put words into my mouth. Your assumptions are way off mark. Wanting our tax dollars to be used responsibly does not mean shutting down all the museums and plowing away cultural icons to make way for parking lots. Your smug comment about Guadi’s Park being bulldozed if it was in Indiana was condescending to Americans in general. Yet again, false assumptions and stereotypes are made of those that reflect opinions different than their own. Because I desire all Americans to receive equal taxation regardless of income level, that now places me (in the eyes of the left) as some knuckle dragging troglodyte desiring to destroy cultural landmarks in pursuit of soulless economic expansion and Wal-Mart’s. Give me a break!

BTW, I too have been to Barcelona. Beautiful city.

FYI, just to give you my background. I studied architecture in college as well as majoring in Political Science. I was also placed into art museum courses since I was ten years old. I also collect Japanese antiquities, specifically Japanese art work, swords and armor many of which are over 400 years old. If you’re interested, here are some photos this troglodyte took during a recent trip to Japan. In the back of mind, I kept wondering what this 1000-year-old Buddhist temple would look like if it had a Wal-Mart nearby to exploit the masses.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showgallery.php?ppuser=30743&cat=500&thumb=1

Appreciation of the arts and culture is not solely the domain of liberals.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

My fault, Ranger. I misinterpreted your worthless drivel comment. However, that's exactly the kind of thing that happens in this country because of the polcies of the right. Here in Michigan funding for the Detroit Institute of the Arts was devasted because of former governor John Engler's anti-culture policies. The DIA has a wonderful collection but is now only open part time because of all the funding it lost. But hey, the auto companies got some money back, so it worked out okay. But the people here voted Engler into office for two terms.

I never said arts and culture are the sole domain of liberals. They're 97% the domain of liberals. Just kidding. My point was more that the economic policies of the right would not allow for a city such as Barcelona to exist in the United States. I didn't mean it as an attack on you personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top